See? See! Don’t you see!

[PrinceMyshkin]

Not one of us is right
in stipulating the nature of God,
but all of us are.

Not one of us knows
to what end this so-called reality
was created or what
our intended role in it
was meant to be,

but we all have had a glimmering
of certainty now and then
and longed to aim our neighbours’ faces
in that direction, and tell them
See? See! Don’t you see!

[NikolaiI]

So depressing!

I guess I'm on the opposite side of this. For instance I absolutely love the story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, by Dostoevsky. I think this just portrays that type of scenario in the most negative light.

[PrinceMyshkin]

So depressing!

I guess I'm on the opposite side of this. For instance I absolutely love the story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, by Dostoevsky. I think this just portrays that type of scenario in the most negative light.

In my view, any man's attempt to be truthful about an aspect of the human condition is worthy of being stated.

[Jerrybaldy]

I am astounded that this could be read as depressing. It read to me as a well displayed universal truth. I also felt it applied equally to those who had chosen a God to follow, as well as atheists, agnostics and all inbetween. Surely truely, universal.


In my view, any man's attempt to be truthful about an aspect of the human condition is worthy of being stated

I could not agree with you more Prince. Your truth rang all the bells I could see for miles. Brilliant and thought provoking piece.

best wishes
JerryB.

[hillwalker]

@#*@#*

[Silas Thorne]

:)
I'm not sure if this is a 'universal truth', but a bit of rhetoric presenting your opinion as common knowledge. It's still a personal perspective. Of course it is worthy of being stated, just not everyone would agree with it.

The first strophe could be interpreted in a number of different ways.
All of us are: 'right?' 'stipulating the nature of god?' I'm not sure how to read it. Both together?

The second strophe seems to deny the possibility of someone 'understanding' reality, and the possibility of a Buddha or spiritually awakened person existing. Rejecting this idea is not really a universal point of wisdom, just one perspective about the way things are.

And the last bit seems to imply that someone can only have a personal glimpse of the world, and that there can't be a common language or shared understanding about the way things are. Someone who tries to point anything they believe they know about the world you've portrayed as a madman. This may or may not be true in any particular case, but by putting 'all' of us in the poem, you also seem to deny that there is no possibility of someone understanding these things.

Of course I'm responding to the argument of the poem here, but this poem is more of a statement of position anyway.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Many thanks JerryB and Hillwalker


:)
I'm not sure if this is a 'universal truth', but a bit of rhetoric presenting your opinion as common knowledge. It's still a personal perspective. Of course it is worthy of being stated, just not everyone would agree with it.

I don't understand your assumption that I mean this as anything other than the persona's point of view?


The first strophe could be interpreted in a number of different ways.
All of us are: 'right?' 'stipulating the nature of god?' I'm not sure how to read it. Both together?
I meant it is doubtful that any one person could know the whole truth about God but that, rather, He is likely to be the sum of our various perceptions and/or idealizations of Him.


The second strophe seems to deny the possibility of someone 'understanding' reality, and the possibility of a Buddha or spiritually awakened person existing. Rejecting this idea is not really a universal point of wisdom, just one perspective about the way things are.
I at least halfway agree with you here. If we accept the idea of a God who is unknowable to any one of us, then it is even more likely to be true that what we can't know the part He intended any one of us to play




And the last bit seems to imply that someone can only have a personal glimpse of the world, and that there can't be a common language or shared understanding about the way things are. Someone who tries to point anything they believe they know about the world you've portrayed as a madman. This may or may not be true in any particular case, but by putting 'all' of us in the poem, you also seem to deny that there is no possibility of someone understanding these things.

Of course I'm responding to the argument of the poem here, but this poem is more of a statement of position anyway.

Well, I might only half-facetiously say that in our confrontations with God, all of us are "madmen" - and none of us is. The point of the final verse is our eagerness to convince the rest of the world - or at least one other person - of the truth of our perception. This might be a generous impulse, or an imperialistic one - or a bit of both.

Personally, I've always felt that if I found the truth, proof of it would be that I'd abstain from trying to sell it to anyone else but that it would shine forth from me so that others might come and ask me what's up.

[NikolaiI]

.....

[Silas Thorne]

I don't understand your assumption that I mean this as anything other than the persona's point of view?

Perhaps because it seems you write your own opinions declaring them to be true for 'we' and 'us'.

[hillwalker]

@#*@#*

[NikolaiI]

,,,,,

[Jerrybaldy]

In my view, any man's attempt to be truthful about an aspect of the human condition is worthy of being stated.

Jesus, I mean Allah, I mean good God.
What is all this ?
It is to me still a universal truth. Of all religions and non religions. If this isn't a poem that should be posted here I don't know what the hell I am doing here. Blinded by devotion or not this is a pure truism.
(Now I am on the subject it is amazing how each God chooses its follower genetically and geographically, but that I am sure is his/her/its way)
Is a bloke not allowed to speak from the heart, from a lifetime of experience, about the esscence of wondering what we are doing here without having to worry about the devout?

[hillwalker]

@#*@#* :smilielol5:

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not forget that we are here to discuss a poem, not each other.

Off-topic posts will be deleted without further notice.

[AuntShecky]

we are here to discuss a poem, not each other.



I wholeheartedly agree. And may I respectfully add that while we are discussing a poem, we discuss not only the "what" but also the "how."

[Jerrybaldy]

And may I respectfully add that, within the rules of the forum, as governed by SCHER, we make our own minds up as to whether to comment on the 'what' or the 'how'

[Haunted]

And may I respectfully add that, within the rules of the forum, as governed by SCHER, we make our own minds up as to whether to comment on the 'what' or the 'how'

And may I respectfully add that there are no Forum Rules from our hero Admin governing what can or cannot be discussed in a post. Also there is no further rules in Personal Poetry saying one should discuss "how" or "what" or "why" and can't engage in friendly, meaningful dialogues.

I'm seeing Poetry Nazis patrolling and I personally find it disturbing. Since then this section has become overly didactic and sterile. I sincerely hope this kind of nonsense will end soon.

[Scheherazade]

~

Since this thread no longer serves its original purpose, it will now be closed.

Those who insist on trying to create an atmosphere of friction and hostility on the Forum should consider this their final warning.

Personal attacks and inflammatory comments are neither welcome nor will be tolerated and will earn those involved infraction points.

~


Prince> I am sorry that the thread has been hijacked in this manner. Please feel free to post your poem again if you choose to do.